How to Think About Atheists
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- Visit DillonFreed.com to get a free gift entitled "5 Powerful Ways to Surrender."
About Me:
M.S. Cognitive Neuroscience (just finishing up)
Adjunct Professor: Mind, Brain, and Behavior
Join my communities:
skool.com/lett...
skool.com/kill...
Socials:
/ dillon.freed
/ dillonfreed
#god #psychology #spirituality #philosophy
Summary:
Existence of Anything:
Three main camps about why anything exists:
From Nothing: Universe popped into existence from nothing.
Always Existed: Universe or something within it always existed.
Created by a Timeless Being: A metaphysical, timeless being caused the universe.
Illogical Beliefs:
All perspectives on existence require accepting some form of illogicality.
Atheist and Theist Perspectives:
Atheists may find the idea of an eternal universe more logical.
Theists might see a metaphysical presence as more logical.
Respect for Metaphysical Ideas:
Metaphysical beliefs deserve respect.
Serious spiritual thinkers do not believe in simplistic "magic sky fairies".
Intelligent people can believe in metaphysical concepts.
Science and Existence:
The question of why anything exists is beyond the scope of science.
Science might never be able to answer why anything exists.
Debate on Intelligence and Belief:
High IQ individuals can hold metaphysical beliefs.
The debate should be respectful and recognize the complexity of the topic.
Critique of New Atheism:
New atheists often misunderstand or misrepresent serious theological and metaphysical ideas.
Serious atheist thinkers do not necessarily align with new atheists.
Conclusion:
Believing in a metaphysical presence is a valid perspective.
Many intelligent thinkers, not necessarily religious, have supported the idea of a metaphysical presence.
Hello all! I'm really trying to keep up with the comments! I will read them all even if I don't respond. Some of the comments I'd like to make longer responses to. Everyone is welcome here - kindness is appreciated, but not required! lol
@@dillonfreed Take your time. You already answered a lot. I think the YT comment section is especially bad for discussing such things, though. Thanks for your effort!
@@marcorothley6039 thanks! yes, no the best area for convo! haha
I'm an atheist and I appreciate your perspective. I can't remember the last time I was called brave or smart for being an atheist. If I'm wrong and God does exist, I have confidence that he'll let me into heaven anyway. After all, I've been a good person. He would have to be a pretty big prick to send me to hell for all eternity.
100% agree! How can God be all-merciful and not allow those dedicated to Truth into heaven... even if ultimately they were wrong and God did exist. If I was God (haha), I'd say I appreciate how you used your mind, and attempted to live well and with love. Come on in!
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.
1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
I read this, but don't have time to respond to it right now. Thank you for writing it. i will maybe do a video response. It will be cordial ;)
@dillonfreed Thanks for reading and responding to my comment. You have my approval to make a response video (not that you needed it). All I ask is that you present it in its entirety and that you steelman it in your introduction. Then, you can criticize, refute, and destroy it.😉
If you have any questions about anything I stated in this comment or anything concerning my position atheism, please ask. I will gladly answer, clarify, or elaborate any point for you. Peace.
@dillonfreed I have subscribed with all notifications. I look forward to your video response. ✌️
I'm still not getting why being motivated by fear and belief is in any way serious. On what basis am I able to pick and choose what God is like? Are God's characteristics just based on hope or preference?
God's nature can be detemrinted (of cousre not defintively) by assuming God is thatwhich nothign else is greater. if so, God must be good, perfredct, all-knwoint, etc. etc. because to not have those qualiteis would be less than godlike. Limitations for God could not exist (unless inhereently contradicory). But of course, no one can ever asbolsutely prove what God is like, all we can do - if we are theolgoically sane - is push for a God that is lovinga nd kind, and attempt to use reason and testimony to prove that. You can project whatever you wish to upon God of course, so once more all one can do is assert God must be good, kind, loving and not a presnece that suggests murder and killer. Keep in mind, I am not religious and reject religious depections of God as a tyrananical, blood thristy entity. thanks for het commnet! :)
@@dillonfreed By that definition he is also the greatest evil and greatest torment. Unless you wanna redefine greatest into "goodest"?
@@dillonfreed I mean. I heard something like that argument before (Onthological Argument), but I can never understand how that can be convincing to anyone. First: why would a most perfect being exist? You can't just define it into existence. Second: what should be seen as "good" or "perfect". These are actually only human made categories which aren't even really clear all the time. I think that way you could define almost anything into existence.
Hey man. Atheist from Brazil here. I think your video was cogent and thoughtful. I became an atheist after being a Catholic child and tween. I was around fourteen or fifteen at the time, and I had already been confirmed as a Catholic. It was a combination of science studies, as well as reading the book of Judges, and thinking about the plausibility, in the light of evolution, of there being out there a mind powerful enough to create a Universe, or humans. I've never felt that coming to the conclusion that probably no god exists had any bearing on morality. I did experience fear of my loved ones going to hell, but that was when I was a true believer, and enough time passed for this fear to not interfere in how I reached my conclusions. My parents weren't happy when I tried to tell them, Mom read that famous psalm "the fool says in his heart there is no God." Two years later, they found out I was having theological debates on the Internet defending atheism. I had a frank conversation with them and I said the values they had taught me do not depend on there being a God and still made a lot of sense to me. It never occurred to me I was suddenly "free" to steal oranges or anything like that.
On your points in the video, they reminded me of a Portuguese philosopher who lives in Brazil, Desidério Murcho. I've read in one of his books a criticism of post-modernists and relativists. Cardinal Bellarmine and Galileo were in opposite sides, wrote Murcho, but both cared about the truth. To both of them, it would be appalling to see a relativist stance that would become so common in the late 20th century in universities, and might still be to some extent now (oh, the humanities... so much wasted potential).
So yes, we are fellow travellers. And I might think more about God than the average believer. I don't count how often I think about the God who isn't there, but I guess I try to imagine what such a being would be like. And often I think this world would be very different if he did exist. Mostly, I think about living a good life before the eternal dreamless snooze. I wonder about things, what we are (my training was in biology and genetics, now I'm a journalist). And I sure dedicate quite a few hours daily to explain things to people so more fellow travellers could appreciate.
Best wishes on your journey and thanks for the warm nod to people like me, it was surely appreciated.
Thanks man! I read this and will respond! Very thoughtful message!
I am a militant atheist. I don't really care about Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. For me, it's pretty simple: every supernatural claim that we've tested has turned out to be false. Every myth that we've been able to test, likewise, has turned out to at least be mostly false. I understand how cults and urban legends and other superstitions develop and spread, and that is completely identical to how every major religion has spread and evolved. It's not how scientific or mathematical knowledge spreads.
But I also don't really care if it is true, because if there is a creator of this world then they're a bastard. Anyone who is looking to subjugate the masses to some mythical tyrant is just as much my enemy as anyone looking to subjugate the masses to a human tyrant. The moral systems that develop from that perspective, no matter how much you clean them up, are fundamentally about self-destruction and self-denial. The focus on masochism and obedience is the problem. Even the very idea that we "should" obey some universal moral framework is, in my mind, an attempt to infringe upon my freedom to do what I want. That same freedom that you brought up in your video. The freedom to make mistakes and be my authentic, imperfect self.
Religion demands unity. It has no recourse for diversity. Even if it were true, I would burn in Hell rather than compromise who I am to appease a supernatural monster. The mind can make a Heaven out of Hell, which I've learned from experience.
I simply don't think there is any common ground to be had between me and any kind of religion or spirituality. Even in your worldview, I am still subject to the "mercy" of God. That implies that God has a privileged position to judge me and is tempering his righteous wrath against me. I don't believe such wrath would be righteous or that such a God is entitled to any such special podium for his judgments of me.
I am my own master. I recognize no gods or men above me.
This is a bloody brilliant explanation. Thanks for taking the time to write this out ☺️
My view of God is that one is given free will. We have many lifetimes and reinacrations to come to God. There is no permament health, there is simply the learning over lifetimes to accure good karma and move closer to God, ultimately returning to the source.
I'm not religious, though I believe in God. I share many of the same objections as you do to religion.
God is not judging you, on my view. God simply created a world in which we are free to choose our actions, and then either move us toward God or away. "Sin" is merely moving away from God.
If I ddin't believe this way, then I'd be an atheist.(I use to be an atheist) I find Christian explanations for the problem of evil insufficent. I don't ascribe to literal biblical interpreation.
To hear William Lane Craig describe how God permitted somethign like genocide is ridiculous and evil.
You can have. your free will on view, and God is only above you in the sense of hoping you evolve into a kinder and more perfect version of yourself.
On my view, it's either that there is reincartaion/karma OR the unvierse is totally random. I don't know how else you could possible explain evil (natural and moral).
I recongize athiests rjection the idea of karma and recinartion - I used to as well. But, my quesiton if God exists and is all good, what would that God be like? So I created a sort of syncertisst system pulling from various traditions and my own experinece.
I may make a video in response to this, thanks for your comment :)
@@dillonfreedI appreciate your well thought out response. I have issues with the notion of karma as well, at least as far as it's conceived in Hinduism and traditional Eastern Buddhism.
The concept of karma is used to victim blame people in the east. I'm not sure if you've heard of that. If someone is born into an abusive family, with a birth defect or genetic illness, or even if some random tragedy strikes them, the victim of these circumstances is blamed for bringing it about through their bad actions. It's not uncommon to shun the needy because they're seen as bad people if they're doing poorly.
In that way, the notion of karma leads to a kind of social Darwinism where people who are doing poorly are evil and people who are doing well are good. This is how India justified its caste system. This is also why misogyny and racism are common in most Buddhist monasteries (with exceptions): if you were ready for enlightenment, you would have been born an east Asian male.
I struggle to understand why this concept is compelling to you. My best guess is that you have a westernized notion of karma, like DT Suzuki or maybe Sadhguru or Shri Rajneesh, where karma is merely a word for the law of cause and effect. But cause and effect doesn't play a moral process in the world. People don't experience random tragedies less or more depending on their character or ideology. The class and country they're born into is a larger determinant, as are genetic predispositions to various diseases.
Maybe you have another understanding of karma that I'm unfamiliar with. Most of the interpretations of karma that I've heard have been damaging and superstitious, but I'm open to being absolutely embarrassed by how wrong I am.
@@dillonfreed But you are just assuming the world would be like you want it to be. Reincarnation, God, Karma... To me it is obvious these are all things someone would make up if you want to find some reason and patterns in the world, but why would you think, these have to be there in the first place?
Also, how could a soul (aka consciousness) without a brain or actual matter even exist? We never witnessed anything like that. We can imagine how a complex enough neural network could produce a consciousness as an emergent property, but there is no idea whatsoever how that could exist otherwise. To that understanding, how could there even be something like reincarnation? That's all just wishful thinking because humans are afraid of dying.
How can you say you use Faith to try to seek truth? It isn't a suitable tool to get any truth. If anything it is just keeping you from finding any truth.
@@marcorothley6039 I'll have to do a longer response to this. I think there are very good reasons to believe in karma and reincarnation. It would start with suggesting God is a possible as a reality, and that if God exists, to be God, he must have certain qualities (e.g. all knowing, all good, etc.). From taht we can then construct a sort of system that would allow God to keep those qualities. I find that someting like reincarnation and karma works well. To your question of how consciousness would exist beyond the brain has to do with the soul, which again is a metaphysical entity. And while it surely seems that the brain is creating consciousness - that, so far, has not been solved yet (though I work on it in my field). I will make a video on this, bc it's such a fascinating question and way too much to type. I'll end with this: as an atheist, a good qeustion to ask, I think is, assume God exists and is all-good and all-knowing, what type of God would that be? This isn't to belive in God, but how could we reconcile those claims with evil and free will and so forth. That (along with epersonal experience) is how I came to my beliefs. Which, of course, I acknowledge might be wrong. But if my beliefs were to arise from fear of death, the motivation wouldn't say anyting regarding if the claims were true or not (that's a genetic fallacy). I don't even make the case tha tyou can prove what I'm saying, but I'm also not saying that it is completely indefensible :) thanks for hte comment, i'll work on a video to this shortly (sorry for typos, in a hurry!)
I responded to this with a "short" vid :D
I appreciate what you said about braveness in face of a lack of afterlife. The words of Epicurus exemplify quite well as to why I don't fear death:
"Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist."
And, as you mentioned later, I believe that if God does exist, and he is all-loving, I simply cannot conceive that atheists would go to hell by simply not being able to believe in a God. Perhaps, at most, we would spend a few minutes or so in there, although I'd assume that the worst suffering imaginable doesn't take much time to change a person.
I also really appreciated your mention that we, too, are on the path to truth. I'm not an atheist because I want to be, I'd actually rather believe in God and the afterlife.
I'm curious as to what you would say on the idea of "choosing what we believe". I am, somewhat passionately, against this idea, and the theists that I have convinced of it I have also tried to convince of Universalism. I think that not only is Universalism more accurate to an all-loving God, but the popularity of this belief would also be much better for the well-being of humanity. I think that considering that we do not choose what to believe, the idea of going to hell, even for a short period of time, both intuitively and logically seems unfair and cruel. Many appeal to the Bible to support this, although I simply believe that this creates cognitive dissonance, which is never something you want.
As for what you said on the convincingness of your interpretation and conclusion about God, I will say that it seems much more accurate to what it is that I would conclude myself. Although, it isn't quite hard to get me to say this considering that I am an agnostic atheists to begin with, and I accept the possibility that there is a god.
EDIT: I will say that, on account of the problem of evil, I do not just lack belief in an all-loving God, but I actively believe that this God does not exist. This is not to say that I do not accept the possibility of this God, although I do more strongly oppose this idea of God, especially in the case of animal suffering. I do, quite controversially it seems, believe that with an omniscient and omnipotent God, we do not have free will. I wont go into that here, although that is why I believe that the biggest objection to this argument fails.
I read this and will respond! I appreciate the comment, very thoughtful.
In neuroscience, can you find a soul or spirit?
Using neuroscience, when someone's brain is harmed enough, does the person that was still exist, or are they lost?
When you are put under for surgery, where do "you" go?
What is "you" in neuroscience?
What scientifically can you say about your ideas?
Im a recent atheist (rather a returning one) after immersing myself into the new age for several years and reading the bible enough to not wish to read further. I appreciate the brave comment and I assure you being an atheist isnt something I wanted - it is as you say, a search for truth. I realised that should a god exist that I would not need to put energy into finding it - it would be obvious as... its god right? as a child i recognised the commonality of love being at the centre of most doctrines and so new age was rather palpable. it gave my suffering meaning, it felt like a progression towards something. and now i feel like ive been on a treadmill the last few years, wanting meaning to come from my suffering... only to find out there is none. I recognise certainly there is much that our brains cannot observe. Yet, I do not see that as enough reason to call it divine. I was essentially a pantheist before this, more that god is us and created us simultaneously. This is when Jesus feeling the weight of all sin on the cross starts to become somewhat plausible maybe? As in, God is experiencing AND witnessing suffering through us and as us in the sense of awareness. The logic that I used to follow (which also aligns with your belief in reincarnation) was that God is all that is and all that will ever be, and so it got bored one day and created duality. As a way to know itself or at least interact with itself without knowing. In theory, through overcoming dual thinking, does one return to source... achieving enlightenment. this playing out over lifetimes as a sort of graduation ritual. But this all seems rather... unnecessary? and also human. why would a god get bored? if god is a creator - why make something that is so cruel? Honestly, im experiencing the freedom you speak of but not from fear of retribution but moreso the ending of seeking and needing of this vague and unknown entity that is being born out of desperation. to feel special and loved unconditionally. for life to have a higher purpose and make sense on some level. Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophies are the only thing getting me through this period of my life. for me it appears that all philosophies and religions are attempting to do one thing: overcome suffering. because that is life. survival. for a purpose no other than survival itself. it appears anyway. the meaning is created by the individual. I dont like where i stand right now but equally, i feel more peace knowing im not lying to myself anymore. not gaslighting myself anymore. i fought with all my might to not succumb to the tedium that is 'life'. i so badly wanted to be hopeful, uplifting and vibrant in spite of it all. but i simply cannot anymore. new age brought magic and novelty to the mundane and whilst i would love to remain there, the bridge has been burned. when i mourn my own suffering, i think of others who suffer greater and grieve for them too. there isnt a solution to this and my breakdown began once I questioned whether free will existed.
beautiful comment. I will respond to this more in length, the good comments I like to take some time responding to, may even do a video on it. I feel like we are all - atheist, New Ager, religionist - we are all searching for truth, meaning (even if we find no meaning), love, and so forth. again, thanks for the comment, more are always welcome :)
6:21 And we've come to the part I expected to hear the most, "atheists think god does NOT exist", and "science proves that a god does NOT exist". This is by far the most popular straw man argument offered by theists, representing a very clear misunderstanding of what atheism is, and utilizing this to de-legitimize the position of atheism.
Atheists typically think science, for all intents and purposes, destroys the possiblity of God from a merely probablistic view. Sure, even Hitches, when pushed admitted that he was agnostic. So tehcincally, I suppse atheism isn't a "real" category - if you take atheism to mean "I think it is not possible at all fro God to exist." But I think most people know what I mean in regards to saying "Atheist think God does not exist" and science is in the process of proving that.... Do you not believe that? I was an atheist, that's what I believed. I know there are varities of atheism, I was just trying to speak generally. Let me know where I've severely misrepresented atheism? Also, I'm not delegitmizing atheism - I think it's a reaosnable position. I just, personally, no longer beleive as much. thanks again! ;)
@@dillonfreed No, once again, you're ascribing atheism and atheists to a strawman that you can easily dismantle. Atheism is not the position that "science destroys the probability of a god" and the notion that you would assert that is not making your position any less absurd. Add that to the attitude in which you present your position and you've got...honestly the same kind of call that happens all the time when theists and deists representing your positions and beliefs call in to Atheist shows to discuss their beliefs. It's so repetitive that I found it shocking how by-the-numbers your fallacies and misrepresentations piled up. I'm not even joking, I'm being serious. I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll find a short video where someone who represents your beliefs nearly exactly as you have presented them calls into an atheist show, and you can see where I'm coming from when I try to explain to you what you are doing. In fact, you sound so "on-script" in mischaracterizing atheism and saying "Well I was an atheist now I'm not" that you probably were one of the callers that was on one of those shows. You also have serious troll vibes, which is why I'm not going to feed you any further with attention in case you are a troll.
I find myself many times wishing that I was not this smart, wishing I was dumber, because the dumb really are not even struggling with all these difficult and many, many unanswered questions!!! The most difficult realisation in my life was when I found that God and religion does not answer them!
Intelligence means knowing there are alterntaive explanations for many thigns religious people believe God caused, it can cause a crisis in faith. I've been there and found my way out, but it took going outside of religion. I respect anyone on this journey. Good luck!
It is sooo refreshing to hear a christian just accept that the atheist position. ("one who does not believe that god exists") rather than freaking out as if the atheist is actually Lucifer in a skin suit trying to trick them out of their sole.
Exactly. They can keep their shoes.
Yes, I was an atheist at one point, I wasn't the devil! I'm not actually a christian, though I respect Christ. I'm mix up a lot of traditions ;) Thanks so much for the commnet!
Every believer has a little bit of atheism inside them.They're just not consistent atheists.They make at least one special exception for one special god but each and every monotheistic believer certainly knows what not being convinced of the existence of a god feels like.
What I personally think is unfortunate about religion is that if they are wrong and it is light's out they have missed the best chance at something in all of their existance.
haha could be the case! lol thanks for your comment
Hello, I'm an atheist from the UK. I've never taken part in a debate and to be honest I find them too adversarial. However, I am interested in conversations with intelligent theists so if you ever fancy a polite and hopefully interesting conversation please get in touch. By the way, if you haven't found it already there's an excellent UA-cam channel called Closer To Truth where a retired neurosurgeon interviews theists, scientists and mathematicians and tries to answer the big and fundamental questions. It's fascinating and well worth subscribing to.
Ask a simple question of morality. Why? Then every time you answer the question ask why again.
@@matthewdancz9152 not sure I understand what you're saying. I think you would probably agree that your morality is better than that demonstrated by the god depicted in the OT which is why you are removing verses
He's so wrong. I don't think atheists are brave, or need to be brave, or even smart, to call out stuff that's total non-sense and illogical.
Its like telling me I'm brave or smart not to believe in Santa and his reindeers flying across the sky.
Its as easy as that. Unbelievable stuff is easy to NOT believe. No bravery or smarts required.
he means brave in the sense of raw dogging life lol, just staring into the abyss
I would suggest that atheists are brave and have been throughout history ot challenge dominant paradigms. The belief that there is no metaphsyical possiblity of life after dath, is brave in my opinion. And atheists are generally smart as they are more scientifcially mind than many (not all) religious believers. That siad, I don't think this is "easy stuff." Maybe some religious ideas are easy to discard - like God caring what you eat or how you wear your hair - but the more profound theological questions require an earnest evalution and are not so easily dismissed. thanks for your comment! ;)
Great video! I am also an atheist (Deconstructing fundamentalist). Nice listening you talk about this stuff. I would also like to believe that if a god does exist, that they would be merciful on those of us seekers of truth.
Thank your for your comment! :) We are all seekers of truth, indeed - I think God welcomes all those earnestly trying to figure things out! (which mostly includes everyone lol)
As a lifelong non believer that grew up in a Christian household I sometimes wonder why I never found the idea of gods convincing when others did. I actually used to believe people were pretending to believe it till I was around 7 or 8.
I think some of it has to do with temperament, being a calm person, naturally optimistic and happy helps.
I would say I don’t believe because god concepts are unfalsifiable so I withhold my belief. Agnostic atheism.
Interestingly my parents many decades ago changed to universalism and that helped ease their concerns about myself and their grandchildren.
I'm a universalist myself... but mixing in reincarnation and karma... (I know, it's a little woo woo lol, but that's what I've arrived at). If I wasn't this, I'd be an agnostic atheist myself. Thanks for your comment.
For the believers... their benign 'father figure' has chosen for them to play a game.
A game with the hordes of little ones, in 'the human herd' that supposedly 'look a bit like him'.
That game is life ...and life is purely a test of your devotion.
Get through the test ( three score and ten years ) and you can spend eternity,
squatting in his awe-inspiring glow. That's it, there is no more to it.
The whole of life is an illusion... there's no real pain or suffering. It was only a game.
This is how the Abrahamic religions see the underlying nature of reality.
As a God given test. Everything else is semantics. You either choose to accept this,
or you won't. Generally, only a very small minority of the herd think this is all nonsense.
The vast majority of the herd need it, they desperately need the conclusion it offers.
The ability to be absolutely right about the true nature of reality and that life is eternal.
Both of these dispel, or at least quell… the curse of human anxiety.
This is what all humans instinctively and unanimously require, what they all crave.
A complete release from the constant torment of 'mortal' anxiety.
Atheists should understand this. They should readily comply.
But like adolescents they fight it. As if they might fight a parent for overly protecting them.
Yet they have to realise they are the outlier. They're out of touch with the 'majority',
herd mentality. Whether they're devoid of normal herd-like levels of emphatic empathy,
or just righteously belligerent iconoclasts.They must realise they're the noisy minority.
And in many ways... both of these atheistic subgroups should consider themselves,
psychologically atypical. For it is normal, it is even a prerequisite to be human.
To believe in fanciful myths and stories of ever lasting life.
To feel the wellspring of emotion form at the thought of a spiritual dimension to your life.
It is and always will be, the default setting. It's what the herd implicitly needs,
in order to function. Many elements of human society only persist,
because they are 'tried and tested'. Because they're absolutely essential tools,
for the mental well-being of the herd.
Hi! I've stumbled onto this video casually. I like very much Philosophy and Logic, so I find myself agnostic to some degree about things I tend not to know, but I can see some of the points atheism does about reality and the arguments of both parts. To answer the points above cited in your video comment, I'd like to analize them to share some light :
-"Three main camps about why anything exists:
From Nothing: Universe popped into existence from nothing.
Always Existed: Universe or something within it always existed.
Created by a Timeless Being: A metaphysical, timeless being caused the universe."
We could say that that the Universe has always existed and a Timeless Being is in fact the same answer, it's a bad multiplicaton of entities that can be answered ruling out God (the Being I have less proof to exist-since it's obvious Universe exists): If I admit the universe is Eternal, there's not need to God, otherwise there is one problem about creation "ex nihilo": Aquinas could't demonstrate for instance that Universe was NOT eternal, he admited that the belief of a "created" Universe was a matter of faith, because since the existence of God is by definition pure Being and actuallity, God existing without creating is admiting in God Passive Potency "ad aeternum", and since what God wish to do and what God does is the same, there is not "previous" non-creation of Universe, therefore Universe is Co-eternal with God.
-Atheist and Theist Perspectives:
Atheists may find the idea of an eternal universe more logical.
Theists might see a metaphysical presence as more logical.
This is a false equivalency fallacy: Logic has not to do with what is perceived as more logic, but what it is demonstrable using logic, so there's not equivallency in what it is believed because it's logical and what it's believed because you feel it's logical. Per stated above, we can demonstrate logically that what it follows from the existence of God is the Co-eternity of Universe. You can or cannot be convinced by it, but it has been logically demonstrated. Machiavelli said "Truth by itself has not power of conviction" .
-Metaphysical beliefs deserve respect.
Serious spiritual thinkers do not believe in simplistic "magic sky fairies".
Intelligent people can believe in metaphysical concepts.
This is a "Petitio Principi": Given that all metaphysical beliefs are all respectable, I can say all LGTBIQ+ will go to hell. We can admit that as a respectable point of view or not: If we do, then any other bigoted belief is equally respectable (I remind you there is not explicit condemn of owning slaves in the Bible). If not, then we have to admit that not any meaphysical belief deserves the same degree of respect. Intelligent people can believe in metaphysical concepts as intelligent people can also maintain prejudices as long as their wish not to contrast them. Carlo María Cipolla in his essay "Allegro ma non troppo" put it's bluntly: "There is the same percentage of stupids among the normal population and the Nobel Prize winners."
-Debate on Intelligence and Belief:
High IQ individuals can hold metaphysical beliefs.
The debate should be respectful and recognize the complexity of the topic.
I would say this is true by the stated above, and also because smart people are able to re-elaborate again and again those metaphysical beliefs in order to keep them. It could be because they feel them part of their identity as persons, or because they justify their way of life. In any case, intelligence seems to be correlative, and not causal to metaphysical beliefs. Ramanujan for instance was a firm hinduist all his life, therefore the cast system it's more rational? Not a chance.
-Conclusion:
Believing in a metaphysical presence is a valid perspective.
Many intelligent thinkers, not necessarily religious, have supported the idea of a metaphysical presence.
As per the points stated, Non Sequitur.
Thanks for your time reading this.
For the believers... their divine 'father figure' has chosen for them to play a game.
A game with the hordes of little ones, in 'the human herd' that supposedly 'look a bit like him'.
That game is life ...and life is purely a test of your devotion.
Get through the test ( three score and ten years ) and you can spend eternity,
squatting in his awe-inspiring glow. That's it, there is no more to it.
The whole of life is an illusion... there's no real pain or suffering. It was all a game.
This is how the Abrahamic religions see the underlying nature of reality.
As a God given test. Everything else is semantics. You either choose to accept this,
or you won't. Generally, only a very small minority of the herd think this is all nonsense.
The vast majority of the herd need it, they desperately need the conclusion it offers.
The ability to be absolutely right about the true nature of reality and that life is eternal.
Both of these dispel, or at least quell… the curse of human anxiety.
This is what all humans instinctively and unanimously require, what they all crave.
A complete release from the constant torment of 'mortal' anxiety.
Atheists should understand this. They should readily comply.
But like adolescents they fight it. As if they might fight a parent for overly protecting them.
Yet they have to realise they are the outlier. They're out of touch with the 'majority',
herd mentality. Whether they're devoid of normal herd-like levels of emphatic empathy,
or just righteously belligerent iconoclasts.They must realise they're the noisy minority.
And in many ways... both of these atheistic subgroups should consider themselves,
psychologically atypical. For it is normal, it is even a prerequisite to be human.
To believe in fanciful myths and stories of ever lasting life.
To feel the wellspring of emotion form at the thought of a spiritual dimension to your life.
It is and always will be, the default setting. It's what the herd implicitly needs,
in order to function. Many elements of human society only persist,
because they are 'tried and tested'. Because they're absolutely essential tools,
for the mental well-being of the herd.
This is why there're religious apologists... who may even be atheists themselves,
who’re more astute than the blatantly antagonistic ones.
Much more in tune with the actual needs of the herd - which they wish to protect,
not belittle.
Let me preface that I am not a native english speaker, so I hope I don't make weird mistakes, and that I volunteer for a group that counsels people with religious trauma syndrome, so some of my replies might show some underlying resentment towards religion. I hope you are able to set that aside and read my reply in full.
As far as your comment on atheists not believing in life after death, that's not an atheist viewpoint. That's a philosophical naturalist's viewpoint, and an atheist doesn't have to be that. This confusion often comes from the incorrect view that an afterlife requires a deity, but to conclude that would be fallacious, but also from the mistake of assuming atheists are materialists/naturalists. They are compatible, but NOT required.
The notion of "having to push an atheist towards agnosticism" is a weird one as well, since that would suggest you ascribe to the hundred+ year old definition used by Huxley, and not the common definition in this century by the vast majority of self-described atheists. To me it is a simple case of mutually exclusive positions. You have theists, and you have those that aren't. The latter are the a-theists, whatever reason they have for not being a theist. And that can be because they are not convinced it's true, or because they are convinced it's false. But both are positions that invalidate them from being theists.
As for god being "the centre" of my life, that's not by choice. So calling me smart for that is nice to hear, but also not true. I know a lot about it because I get bombarded with it a lot, and had to defend my life without god to family, friends, coworkers and so on. So it's not that I can't levae god alone because of my own will, but because of theists' urge to draw me into the discussion, only to accuse ME of making a fuss about "their" religion.
As for your particular view of god, I see people making up their own gods every day. And it's always a god that just happens to hold all the same views they do. So at this time I feel they use god as their "plus one", where they feel their views get more validated when they can say they are god's views instead of their own, and I have seen it a lot amongst people that were once in a religion which had emotional manipulation as one of it's tools, and they were always told they were tiny, insignificant, broken, bad, you know, classic christian teachings. So they try to bypass their insecurity by saying it's not their views, but god views.
As for me getting into heaven, I think I understand your intended message, and I appreciate that, but I do hope you understand atheists might not want to get into heaven. Certainly not the heaven that I was taught where it justs consists of praising god all day every day. I don't believe in god now, so why would I ever want to be his groupie in heaven ?
And to address your own version of Pascal's Wager, where you say that if you are wrong it doesn't really matter, that is not true in several cases. You could be wrong and there could be a completely different god or afterlife that for some reason punishes you but not atheists, or both of us. So yeah, being wrong always has a cost, we just don't always see it. My parents tried Pascal's Wager on me as well, suggesting they didn't loose anything if god turns out to not exist. But they ignore all the things they neglected here and now based on their religious rules. Potential friendships with people on the lgbt spectrum, music they weren't allowed to listen to, money they gave to the church instead of neighbours in need... I could go on and on about things they denied themselves for god that would be a waste if god is not real and their devotion was aimed at the wrong direction.
I read your post, and will write back later! Thank you so much for the thoughtful reply... Just very briefly, you are right, I may have overstated that God is the center of an atheists life - I suppose da better way to put it is that they take the debate very seriously. :)
@@dillonfreed ...and not by choice really. If I could spend my life without talking about gods I would. However living on the edge of the biblebelt ( yes, even the Netherlands have one, thanks to several rich Americans who send their google-translated versions of their Answers-in-genesis booklets here ). However every sunday when I visit my parents, they can't help but bring up my non-belief in some way, shape or form.
So you have a subjective god concept with some Pascal’s wager type motivation (that’s fine…you do you). The supernatural has never been demonstrated and therefore the likelihood that a single person has ever known who we are, what we should do or where we are going through existence is extremely low. Atheists just don’t like pretending we know something we don’t. I have hypothesised a god concept myself too but I have zero evidence of it. It’s nothing but wishful thinking if I was to choose to have belief in it.
It’s kind of an egocentric view that we could think that our thoughts are so important that you can just apply our own attributes to an undemonstrated god by simply conjuring up ideas in your mind.
It's not so much a Pascal's wager for me, I believe fully in God. Mostly from personal experience, but that is obviously only for me and means nothing else to anyone else. I don't think the supernatural can be demonstrated. It's outside of physics, by defintion. That said, I do feel we can maybe be nudged toward it. There is no "proof" of God, just maybe hints? I don't know how to put it. I do think you can personally experience God (and people can delude themselves into thinking that they experience God lol... Maybe I am doing that ;)).
I think "evidence" for God will always be lacking, and the only real knowledge of the existence of God would be first hand experience with God.
I do think humans project onto the idea of the metaphyscial, rather insane things (religious ideas can be nutty). The experience fo Divinty, to your point, essentially is beyond all thinking, so in my experience (again, just myexperience), you are right in a sense. Our thoughts, thinking, philosophy fall short of what God truly is.
Great comment, thank you;)
You actually used pascal's wager here, though. It's one thing to add to the reasons you believe, but it would be dishonest to deny that.
Hi there! I am an atheist and I am leaving a comment. :)
I don't think I have much to agree or disagree with here, honestly. Sure, atheists can be funny or smart or kind or spiritual or argumentative, or anything really. We're all people after all, and it's not good practice to become too attached to the marriage of religious identifications with personal traits.
In any case, what I'm most interested in your actual testimony, which left me wanting. You say you were an atheist when you were younger, but now believe again, but didn't go much into detail about how those changes occurred and what caused them. Would you mind explaining that for me? Thanks!
Your confusion, which is very common, comes from thinking of "metaphysics" as a coherent notion. Its not. What we call "metaphysical questions" are "pseudo questions" in the sense that grammatically they look like questions, but they have no answers in the sense that other "real," questions have answers. Rather, they are things that we have a tendency to ponder, and yet have no demonstrable effect on anything we actually do, which is why we can ignore them entirely and yet still do what we are already doing. "Atheism" as applied to philosophy is the realization that we don't need metaphysics, or "metaphysical beliefs," in order to have epistemology. All we need is pragmatism.
I know that some people view metaphysical questions as asking which way is Norht at the Norht Pole, I do not fall into that camp. I'm not confused about those who claim these questions are not meaningful - it's a legimtimate position - I just think they are meanginful. And other serious philosophers do as well, even philsophers who do not belive in God still treat metaphysical questions seriously. Metaphysics is not scientific, so the skeptism is warranted of course. (How can that which is beyond physics to be studied?) There are atheists who take metaphysical ideas seriously - even something like the existence of numbers, more platonists or something. I suppose I would push back a little just by pointing out it is not settled that metaphsyics is otiose. :) Great comment, thanks for sharing :)
@@dillonfreed Certainly metaphysics was historically popular and still has plenty of adherents, including among atheists, philosophers, and scientists. But the point is that the main thrust of 20th century philosophy, from the logical positivists, to the linguistic turn, to post-modernism can be characterized as the rejection of metaphysics in general. This is clearly the trend and it is not slowing down, though its still largely a minority view, especially among laymen. As you seem to recognize, if a person insists that they can or do "know what is really real," then they invoke metaphysics. Religions people call this invocation "god," while the irreligious call it "objectivity," but its the same metaphysics, namely that humans must relate to the non-human in order to achieve what they value. For example,
As I'm sure you are aware, theists often insist that "god" is necessary for humans to have " objective morality," while atheists often declare that morality need not be "objective" in order for us to use it. Atheists point out that it is unclear what "objectivity" means in relation to morality. Pragmatists, who are at the cusp of 20th century philosophy, point out that "objectivity" is no more clear an idea in epistemology than it is in ethics. And yet, as with ethics, we can still use epistemology without insisting upon "objectivity" at all.
Which shows how objectivity is to epistemology as god is to theism, namely both are the "metaphysical claim of what is really real". As such, secular humanism does to ethics, what pragmatism does to epistemology, namely, shows how our metaphysical claims of objectivity are unnecessary. It is in this sense that atheism demands pragmatism.
Why do you believe in reincarnation and karma?
For several reasons, mostly personal (which means nothing to no one but me lol), but also because I find it impossible (for myself) to deal with the problem of evil without those two things. (Not that there aren't Christian answers to such questions, and while feasible, I find them not compelling.)
The only conception of this world, in my estimation that makes sense, would be that we have many lifetimes - thus "no one" dies, so death isn't exactly a tragedy. Further no one ends up in hell forever (I still think hell is a reality, but not a place... too much go into here)... So essentially, we evolve spiritually over time, becoming kinder, more loving, etc. etc. I think only something like karam/reincarnation cannot account for all forms of evil, death, illnesses, etc. Last point, I don't see karma as a 1 to 1 thing necessarily - I bunched you in the face so I get punched in the face in this life or a later life. It can 1) be symbolic, regenerated similar feelings, and/or 2) our karma is mixed with good and bad deeds.... so we did something horrible but it is offset some as we helped old women cross the street or whatever.
God thus, does not "punish" but set up a system in which "right" actions lead to knowledge/heaven, and "wrong" actions lead to ignorance/hell. But God is infinitely merciful, and thus, no one is ever abandoned or left out of heaven.
God remains "all knowing" without knowing the exact actions we will choose.... The same way that a calculator doesn't need to know what we put into as it has all possible answers (within a range). God would be like essentially some essence that conatins all possible combinations and perumations of all actions/thoguths/interactions/etc in all realms. But, just becuase God knows all possible paths, doesn't mean he has to know which path an individaul may choose, so it leaves room for free will. God not knowing what we will choose coudl be see as maybe a way to retain perfection - in the sense that if you already know all possible world states, which one arises matters little. Also without allowing that sort of Free Will God would be complict in "evil" by allowing it, this would detract from his goodness. (we could also get into why God has to be good, all knowing, and so. forth).
If you don't believe in that (and I know most atheists and Christians reject this lol), then you have two broad options to deal with evil. Take the atheist route - it's all random (and evil is just, in the end, a human projection but we must treat it as real to alleviate human suffering), or second, take a religious view which is God works in mysterious ways and "evil" on earth is God's will. thanks for hte comment, sorry for any typos! ;)
@@dillonfreed "Argument from personal incredulity", and "personal experience".
Evil exists because it is the fire with which god purifies our souls of imputies so that we may stand with god and enter the kingdom of heaven. God does not care about our Earthly suffering or pleasure., his concern is our ever living soul. Hell is the fire, and Earth is the crucible placed near that fire were the impurities within our soul are burned away. God is the smith of souls.
@@matthewdancz9152 Yeah, but how do you know that is true?
@@matthewdancz9152 Why should I be afraid of a hell and not Niflheim, the hell of Norse mythology? Aren't you afraid of being cursed by Loki to spend eternity in Niflheim? And if not, why not?
Ah, baiting anti-theist's with beguiling bait.
The issue is... no one can ever win the, ( A single parental figure controls everything )
cosmological/ontological argument.
Neither rowdy atheist or strident theist has ever 'won' the argument.
The profundity of the question is without doubt. But if history can teach you anything,
is that this debate has raged for millennia - So what does that tell you?
All you're ever doing, is offering 'momentary credence' to your view ...and for the others,
that follow that view. Religious debate is a never-ending 'rally' in tennis.
To rise up to it and to participate in pure language games ...is inane.
The 'smart' people on both sides should realise this?
Those that are listening to you, are already indoctrinated into what you believe.
The iconoclastic atheist and ardent theist are all one and the same.
They're both willing to fight a winless war. To be Sisyphus personified.
For believing in a fictitious father figure is fruitless.
Like swallowing a life-sized placebo lozenge. It is an anxiety pill, and nothing more.
But believing you can use logic or empiricism to counter a belief system,
based on the idea this 'life is a test of faith', without any internal validation,
or proof for the believer, is beyond idiotic.
That German guy... Einstein, he may've ( ? ) even have had a famous quote,
about it... something about insanity and repetition.
Religion is a self-perpetuating 'closed' system... it cannot be defeated.
That's why it defeats or subdues internal anxiety for the believer.
Why they cling to it so desperately. You will not dislodge their grasp on it.
Beautifully written - I'm a sucker for good prose. But some questions: The lack of resolution in regards to this debate is fascinating don't you think? Why can't it be settled? What is holding us back from settling it? How can you say that it is an "endless" war if you have determined that the God is a "fictitious father?" Shouldn't the war be over if that can be prove? Even if we are taking religious belief as an "anxiety pill" would that, in and of itself, disprove that the belief is true? The motivation for believing something does not disqualify the veracity of that which is believed....
I don't think religion or atheism should be "defeated." They are both ways of looking for the truth, and they have differing paradigms of reality. It's too much to write here, but I may do a video on this comment. Please leave more, enjoyed reading it!
Everyone should have been taught how to utilise critical thinking. It shouldn't be a question of debate if something has never been proven in any way, should it be considered true, till it has been proven sufficiently. We have the methodology, yet people still ignore it. Why? Because religion still have those white lies that give us comfort. Some people admit it (atheists), some people don't (theists).
You can think critically and still believe in God - even someone like Godel tried to use reason to justify God's existence (what he actually believed is up for debate). In fact, that's sort of a point in other videos I've made: it's reasonable to consider God as a possible explanation for the existence of "STUFF". This is a question that is not "religious" in nature, but merely metaphysical (though religious people have varying views on the topic as well). But I think attempting to establish a metaphysical presence is as reasonable as assuming the universe (the Standard Model, laws of nature, quantum, foam, etc. etc.) simply existed forever. It is also, in my opinion, a perfectly reasonable thing to debate with highly intelligent and honest people both sides of the question.
I do think we should split religion from more basic questions of metaphysics. For instance, certain Christian apologists will sometimes make claims about God's existence without resorting to specifically Christian beliefs. Same with certain Muslim thinkers. I'm more in the camp of doing that.
Lastly, even if religious people and religions created the idea for God for the purpose of feeling comfort, it does not follow that therefore God does not exist.
But generally speaking, I think atheists are right to reject some of the more outlandish claims by religions.
thanks for the comment ;)
@@dillonfreed One great example of why critical thinking is not compatible with religion is that, we don't use belief systems when we talk about electromagnetic force, or any other laws of physics, but we utilize fact based, proven rulesets.
Imagine, if we would have dozens of different interpretations of physical laws in different countries. Would that work? I doubt it.
Now, we can get away with that in religions, since those are not evidence, but faith based. Now, how could you utilize critical thinking in any religion, when there is no evidence behind those? Why can't people utilize the same methodology about religions, that we use when we determine natural laws? Does it seem like religion worth to follow when it basically makes people accept things that have never been proven in any way? What does that teach to children about how to think, and how to determine what is factual and what is false?
I hope it clarifies why I think religion is not just a harmless endeavour, but actually create cognitive dissonance in people.
Also, I would like to introduce myself as an anti-theist, and not an atheist, since my opinion about theism is more solid, not just a disbelief. Just to make sure that there is difference between my statements here and opinions of atheists.
I hope that doesn't sound too harsh, it only means that I'm pretty much convinced that there are no gods, but of course, if anyone could prove them, I would accept the evidence.
@@dillonfreed How can you test metaphysical? You've brought this up a lot, but not towards the goal of applying any scientific method towards the metaphysical.
Get rid of the subtitles. Please!!!
Your version of god and heaven are childish. I don't mean that as an insult just that your beliefs rely on what feels good to you. You think you have a "complex" view. In reality you have no definition for your god because you would then need to reflect on some qualities god should have.
You absolutely did use Pascale's wager in this video, contrary to your response to a comment calling that out.
Hello! thanks for the comment ... Just a few points: If something feels good to a person, it does not follow that those beliefs are false. That's a genetic fallacy.
I don't think God can be proven or disproven objectively, thus we all present evidence to "nudge" ourselves one way or another.
I don't think my view of God is childish, as my view accounts for genocide, childhood cancer, natural disasters, and so forth.
I don't believe in Pascal's wager as I don't think any is put into hell forever if they don't believe in God. There is no ultimate punishment for being an atheist, one simply, at some point, discovers God, through multiple lifetimes. There is no need to "wager" anything.
I have a definition for God and the qualities God must have to be God. From that I then derive a type of system that I feel/think must exist for God to maintain those qualities and for things like "evil" to exist. This leads me to reincarnation and karma (using traditional terms). I'm doing a much longer video on this and it will piss of atheists and Christians and Muslims and Jews lol. But it is truly what I believe ;) (Based on the above, but more so on personal experience, which means nothing to anyone except me - so I only talk about certain "philosophical" ideas that might have merit for what I think the case is...)
again, thanks for your comment ;)
1. Why would you try to push atheists towards fallacious reasoning in asserting the chances of an afterlife and a god? The reasonable answer to "what percentage" is effectively "I don't know." Saying that it is .00001 percent is asserting the chance, saying "I Don't Know" is being honest. 2. What is a "hardcore atheist"? The closest you got to defining that is calling it someone who not only doesn't believe the "look at the trees" fallacy in addressing the afterlife, but also someone who "hates their life" and welcomes nothingness. Strawman #2 spotted, I see where you're going with this. You should call in to the Atheist Experience, The Line, Skeptalk, or other shows and present these assertions of yours, and see what kind of productive discussion you could work through if you're really being honest in your approach here.
Bc I don't think is is fallacious reasoning, you are more than welcome to think that it is, and explain why so. I do think to believe in God requires a "leap of faith" to use the Soren cliche.... And I don't put the % at .00001. I don't how you would put a percentage on it. I don't think atheists hate their lives and welcome nothingness. I think many atheists love their lives and have accepted that it is nothingness when we die. I'd call in to those shows at some point for sure. I mean, I feel like I've heard every atheist position and find most of them reasonable and understandable, but not conclusive. I am not forcing my beliefs onto anyone, it's a simple invitation to take serious theological ideas, well, seriously. You are more than welcome to ridicule those ideas, think people who them stupid, out of touch, motivated by fear, childish - whatever you choose. I don't feel that way about atheists, I know they have good reasons for believing (I used to be an atheist). I'm not know, I'm very comfortable in my belief.
thanks for your comment ;) more are welcome
@@dillonfreed "Appeal to probability", "Begging the question", "Presuppositionalism". There's no reason to take theological propositions seriously, at all, until they've demonstrated truth in their claims. If someone 2000 years ago said that half-human half-beetle hybrid animals roamed the earth and spoke Klingon, and thus in 2000 years a golden carrot would fall from the skies and cause it to rain skittles for 20 years straight unless you worship the carrot. That could actually be in a book, does that make it true? You could have a personal experience involving a carrot, does that make it all true?
@@dillonfreed You said you don't find atheist positions "conclusive". What about "I don't believe in a god" isn't conclusive to you? I believe that you believe in a god, and that's me being honest. But you don't find it "conclusive" when atheists lack belief in a god, if you don't see how this demonstrates the fallacy of your position here, I don't know what else will. The problem isn't that you believe in a god, that's not it at all. The problem is that you are categorically mischaracterizing atheists and atheism and doing it dishonestly. You're trying to wriggle out of it like you're being kind to them, but you are exercising immorality in doing this video and trying to spread this seed of distrust towards atheists. You may be a really nice guy to a lot of people, but your attitude towards atheists is holding a knife in the other hand just out of sight.
All morality and thought for that matter is built on logical fallacies. Just keep asking why you should follow a moral code at all.
You identified the strawman logical fallacy, but what about that logical fallacy you are using, where you ignore the conclusion of an argument because the argument isn't compelling even though the conclusion is actually right. What do they call that one again?
@@matthewdancz9152 I don't know what you're getting at with suggesting all morality is built on logical fallacies. I have a moral code that in the simplest terms is about not causing undue harm an making efforts to support flourishing. Such as, I wouldn't stab someone with a knife to cause harm, but if I was a doctor I might do that to conduct surgery and save a life. Belief in a deity is not required to have a moral code. A bible may be written to dictate moral code and be correct in it's application of morality, but that doesn't make a god being exist, and that doesn't make the various bibles of the world entirely true.
2:26 Again, totally wrong. You describe atheists as people who have alot of problems with religion, dogmatism, certain scriptures...then you tangent off into bragging about your re-written bible...then come back to say that they're brave for confronting reality in the fact that they're going to die and that's it. So you're not only describing atheists as something they aren't all claiming to be, you're also implying pity for them for being what you clearly think is wrong. As if they're pretending in their lack of belief, and that it is sooo brave. Don't you realize how condescending that is? And to this point you seem to be operating on some basis of knowledge that what atheists are wrong about, you are correct about, but you haven't presented any evidence for such a claim.
No, I think it's brave. There is no ulterior motive there. I don't pity them because I don't think atheists go to hell. I think God welcomes atheists, they used their reason and logic. I'm not bragging about my re-written Bible, I'm just pointing out that I'm not a Christian in the traditional sense and I agree with atheists on many of their complaints about the Bible. That was the point of bringing it up. I don't think atheists are pretending in their lack of belief, but I've found most atheists are playing a probability game (understandable) - as you did in your previous comment - and they are agnostic... but in a very, very, very, very..... very weak sense. (.00001% as you put it as the probablity that theolgoic ideas are true). I used to be an atheist, so aside from reading them, I also was one. I wasn't evil and stupid or whatever as an atheist, so I don't think atheists are those things now. Why would I? I still think they make good points. If I have one complaint, it would the tone with which atheists have now after the New Atheists became popular. Some things in religion, honor killings, defending genocide - sure, have it em. But merely debating whether a metaphysical being is a possiblity is a rich philosophical discussion, in my estimation. Thanks for your comment ;) more, again, are welcome ;)
@@dillonfreed 1. You're going to have to define what "New Atheist" is, because that sounds entirely made up and can't be a thing when atheism is neither new nor grouped into one singular mindset. 2. You're asserting that a god welcomes atheists, but I don't know which god that is and how that could possibly be true, if possibilities is the word game you're playing here. 3. What is a metaphysical being? How do you define what that is, what characteristics does it have and how are you confident that it is true in what you've described?
You never define "spiritual" so I have no idea what you are referring to. Is that feeling some type of way? Because in 2024 we call that emotions. Is it thinking certain things? We call that cognition. Or maybe you with your background refer to self-reflection and self-examination. That's consciousness. So where or of what is "spiritual" comprised? Awe is an emotional response. Wonder is a cognitive response. If you can't level-set what you mean by "spiritual" then your gibbering about it isn't meaningful.
I was just doing a video related to this actually lol... But to your question: The spiritual would be the soul, or you might call it a timeless, formless presence which is the same in essence as the Godhead, but not of the same magnitude, power, etc. Thus, from the state of what might be called (and has been called "Enlightenment" - in the Eastern sense), the mind, body, emotions are simply occurring in the physical body while "one' is no longer present, but merely a witness to that activity. Thinking, feeling, and so forth go on as normal in an true mystic (true, meaning one who is in this state) though the "mystic" is no longer "with" the body or mind. There is no "I" remaining that is individualized, but rather there is a sort of "personal" point of view that from a oneness. This is not an out of body experience, it is not a "brain state" (according to mystics). Thinking cannot get one to this state. It is one reason there are Zen koans, to hopefully jolt one out of their ordinary consciousness - to go beyond all conceptual thought (cf. Huang Po). Atheists might claim that the mystic is telling the truth about what they experience, but it's still just a brain state - a highly convincing one. (Same with something like NDEs). The atheist might claim that the time and space and body-encoding apparatus in the brain, so to speak, simply has been "shut off" and that gives one an oceanic feeling with something timeless and formless without feeling attached to the body. Of course, other strange phenomenon, according to mystics in this state, tend to occur - such as synchronicities, or if will is used (which seems to be an aspect of the Soul) to think of something in the mind, that which is thought of might appear (that is, prayers are answered more frequently from such a state - which might suggest it's not merely a brain state if true.) Atheists might counter (and for that matter, certain Western religious folks who think Eastern enlightenment idiotic), that the increased synchronicities aren't real or are merely coincidences. The point is that the soul, the spiritual would be a meta-physical state - and while metaphysical some aspect of human awareness can come into contact with it, and that which human awareness comes into contact with is the so-called "real self". There are varying mystical names for it: Soul, Self, Purusha, etc. etc. Thanks for your comment. ;)